B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Just read the De Vinci Code if you want to find out.
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
yes. but i would like to hear ben gives his account on Jesus descendents.
thks…
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
By the way, for anyone too lazy to read Rome and Jerusalem, here are some quick sources on Pontius Pilate:
livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate03.html
livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html
Quoting in part:
It has been argued that Pilate tried to follow in Antiochus’ footsteps, and that the incidents we will discuss below were deliberate provocations. This point of view is untenable, since it ignores the negative bias of the Jewish sources.
Besides, there is positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy of cooperation. Since there was no Syrian governor to mint coins, Pilate had to do it himself. These coins show the staff of an Italian seer; on the reverse, one could have seen a bunch of grapes, which is the usual picture on any Jewish coin. Pilate thus combined an inoffensive pagan and an inoffensive Jewish symbol, which probably reflects a policy of equal rights to Jews and pagans. He would not force the Jews to lay down their ancestral ways; he invited them to be Rome’s equals.
livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate03.html
livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html
Quoting in part:
It has been argued that Pilate tried to follow in Antiochus’ footsteps, and that the incidents we will discuss below were deliberate provocations. This point of view is untenable, since it ignores the negative bias of the Jewish sources.
Besides, there is positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy of cooperation. Since there was no Syrian governor to mint coins, Pilate had to do it himself. These coins show the staff of an Italian seer; on the reverse, one could have seen a bunch of grapes, which is the usual picture on any Jewish coin. Pilate thus combined an inoffensive pagan and an inoffensive Jewish symbol, which probably reflects a policy of equal rights to Jews and pagans. He would not force the Jews to lay down their ancestral ways; he invited them to be Rome’s equals.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Aha! Now, Josephus must have belonged to the negative bias of the Jewish sources to describe the cruel character that Pilate was, when the opposite is true, for Josephus needed to please the Romans to save his own skin. Why would he speak so bad about a Roman Governor if it was not true?
Do you know something? I doubt that you yourself believe in the angelical character of Pilate. You must be doing this either to provoke a Jew or with some other kind of agenda. I don’t think I’ll be wasting my time picking up your posts for a reply anymore. Definitely, you are not serious.**
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
By the time that Josephus wrote the war was already concluded. What was Josephus ageneda, we can only guess, though the usual explanation is that he was making his patrons (not all Romans equally) look good. But the author I quoted gave evidence for doubting not Josephus’ recitation of events but merely the motives that some impute to him. Pilate was merely incompetent, not antisemitic.
Josephus is not an infallible source and there are many valid reasons for taking his reports with a large grain of salt:
Was Josephus really the great Jewish historian that history and historians have made him out to be, or, as the evidence suggests, was he himself, a self-serving individual who betrayed his own people and then spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it? This question begs to be asked. It may be that the criticism leveled against Josephus is not only warranted, but desires to be addressed in a whole new light. We know that Josephus embellished his histories, and we accepted this, as it was the norm of his day for historians to do so. Yet other historians of the first century who have embellished their histories have had other historical accounts to back them up. But, as we will see, Josephus’ histories contain more than just simple embellishments, and it is possible to accuse him of out right lying. But a more important point which we will address will be whether Josephus’ work (having no other documents from that time period to reference in support of his description of events), has any merit at all. As historians the question should not be whether or not Josephus’ work has validity as a source, but whether it should be considered at all. It may be that in the end, we may find that Josephus’ work bears no more consideration than the so-called Hitler Diaries. (Claimed to be discovered by the German magazine Der Stern in April 1983, the “diaries” were propertied to have been written by Hitler between the years 1932 – 1945. Later the dairies were proven to be faked when the fibers in the paper were shown to be of postwar manufacture).
historyvortex.org/Josephus.html
My agenda is merely to expose the truth. If that makes you unfomfortable it can only be because you were raised on Rabbinical myths.
What is most fascinating is the stak difference between Biblical and Rabbinical Judaism on the issue of Jewish responsibility. The Prophets had no qualms about blaming Israel for the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, though obviously they were the actions of foreign powers. But the Rabbinical movement sought to shift blame away from themselves to Rome. Sometime around 1C-2C Jews stopped being a moral light and became merely victims of a gentile world seeking to be left alone.
Far from being a Collective Messiah, Israel has gone AWOL from it’s duties. No wonder the Christians came to believe in Replacement Theology.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Replacement Theology is not something that Christians decided to believe in, as a result of anything else happening simultaneously. Replacement Theology was established by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Jesus’ descendants is an issue based largely on speculations. I can’t endorse anything which I don’t have any evidence to derive it from in the NT. To me, the opinions of schollars are secondary to what I can get from the Scriptures and digest into my understanding. **
D
djeter
Guest
Interesting thread.
For how Paul reconceived the nature of God, may I suggest Gorman’s analysis:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/02/understanding-paul-3-how-paul-reconceived-the-nature-of-god/
And for how the old and new testaments relate:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/29/the-old-and-new-testaments/
a Chapter from Avery Cardinal Dulles’ Revelation Theology, which sadly appears to be out of print on Amazon (but still available in used outlets, see the link at the end of the post)
DJ
For how Paul reconceived the nature of God, may I suggest Gorman’s analysis:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/02/understanding-paul-3-how-paul-reconceived-the-nature-of-god/
And for how the old and new testaments relate:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/29/the-old-and-new-testaments/
a Chapter from Avery Cardinal Dulles’ Revelation Theology, which sadly appears to be out of print on Amazon (but still available in used outlets, see the link at the end of the post)
DJ
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Like most things in Christian theology, Replacement Theology was an evolution of thought. Replacement Theology is not merely the inclusion of Gentiles into the Covenant with God, which is what Paul taught, it is the demotion of Jews from their relationship with God.Bubba:
Replacement Theology is not something that Christians decided to believe in, as a result of anything else happening simultaneously. Replacement Theology was established by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31.
Demotion of non-Christian Jews began with Justin who wrote of his Dialogue wiht Typho the Jew. In it he argued that the destruction of Jerusalem and the failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion was a judgement of God for the failure to believe in Jesus.
Origen was one of the most antisemitic of the early Church Fathers arguing, for the first time, in terms of scripture for Replacement Theology. But in his own time, Origen’s theology was controverisal being twice excommunicated.
Replacement Theology was a fertile idea because the non-Christian Jews had self-destructed. It is impossible to imagine Replacement Theology being adopted without the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and Israel in the wars with Rome. Not only did this destruction delegitimize Israel in the eyes of gentiles, it robbed Christianity of Jewish Christians. Those Jewish Christians who survived most likely assimilated into gentile Christianity.
Keep in mind, also, that Replacement Theology is not a single, coherent theory but, rather, a collection of roughly similar ideas. Even now it is still very much debated among Christians, which would certainly not be the case if Paul were understood as having set it down in Galations. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replacement_theology
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Interesting articles but the second article, the chapter, doesn’t seem to cover the relationship beyond the incompleteness of the OT and the dependence of the NT on the OT.
The central question is this: is the Mosaic Law abolished and how did the idea of the abolishment of the Mosaic Law evolve. But of no less importance is the question of what the Mosaic Law and the Sinai Covenant actually entailed. If, for example, Judaism makes no promise of salvation in an after-life or ressurection nof the dead then the Catholic belief that there is no salvation outside the Church is not incompatible with the Sinai Covenant.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
D
djeter
Guest
Well the good Cardinal wrote:
“The New Testament does not stand by itself; it is organically linked to the Old Testament as the matrix out of which it grows. The same themes are resumed and amplified on continually higher planes until at length all the lines converge in Christ, who in turn illumines — and is illumined by — the entire prehistory that points toward him, though in a veiled manner.”
Plagiarism is hardly an answer, but I will assume that is your attempt to be clever.
DJ
“The New Testament does not stand by itself; it is organically linked to the Old Testament as the matrix out of which it grows. The same themes are resumed and amplified on continually higher planes until at length all the lines converge in Christ, who in turn illumines — and is illumined by — the entire prehistory that points toward him, though in a veiled manner.”
Plagiarism is hardly an answer, but I will assume that is your attempt to be clever.
DJ
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Well, the good Cardinal did not know the difference between plagiarism and assumption. First, the gospel writers assumed that the \
Tanach points to Jesus, and then plagiarized at their heart’s content, in order to document him to be according to the Christ of Paul.
You assumed wrongly because my attempt is to be true to the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism, and I am sure you won’t deny that.**
A
Answersplease
Guest
Is this “Collective Messiah” without a thoughtful mind if it needs a single leader to use his single mind to:
We all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. So, no argument about it. But then whom did Isaiah have in mind when he wrote chapter 53? In fact, who was in his mind when he wrote the whole book? That’s in Isaiah 1:1: “A vision about Judah and Jerusalem.” That’s the theme of the book of Isaiah: Judah. Or the House of Jacob called by the name Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)
Now, how about the Suffering Servant? Isaiah mentions him by name, which is Israel according to Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4
Now, we have extablished a syllogism. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, the resultant premise will obviously be that Israel (the Jewish People) is the Messiah. Rashi thought so too, and a few other thinkers of weight.
Now, if the Messiah must also bring the epitet of son of God, there is no problem. We can have it from Exodus 4:22,23. Here’s what it says in there: “Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that he may serve Me,” says the Lord. That’s why Hosea said that
“When Israel was a child, God said, out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1)
Last but not least, Jesus no doubt was part of the Messiah but not on an individual basis. The Messiah is collective. What we need from time to time, especially in exile, is of a Messianic leader to lead or inspire the Messiah to return home. Moses
was one for bringing the Messiah back to Canaan. Cyrus was another for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple; and in our modern times, we had Herzl who was also one for inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.
Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.
Ben:
“inspire the Messiah to return home”,
and to bring “the Messiah back to Canaan”,
and “for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple”?
Is this “Collective Messiah” without love and inspiration if it needs a single leader to use his single love for “inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion”?
No offense, but is the “Collective Messiah” spotless and clean, or are there homosexuals and criminals such as murderers and thieves contained in the body of the “Collective Messiah”? How can you explain this?
A
Answersplease
Guest
If the Messiah is supposed to be of the line of David, I did’nt know that all the Jews were of the line of David.One person is an individual; collective is the People. No, according to my thread above, I don’t believe the Messiah is one person but Israel, the Jewish People, just as
Isaiah says.
Ben:
What is the Messiah supposed to do?
Messiah means Annointed One, does the Messiah represent or mediate for the Chosen People?
A priest is a mediator between man and God.
Leviticus 4:3
if the annointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
I the Messiah (Annointed One) is all the Jews, are there enough “bulls without defect”?
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**The actual Jewish People is the House of Jacob called by the new name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1) You will have a pretty good idea if you read my thread on “Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David.”
That system opperated according to Leviticus 4:3 is no longer in use. It is over since the day Israel was removed from existence for the redemption of Judah. Today, only Messiah ben David exists as the Triumphant Servant. Now, the method to cleanse one from sins is called law of cause and effect. Each one is responsible for his or her own wrongdoings. Besides, we don’t have a Temple for sacrifices to be offered.
But to answer your question, “What is the Messiah supposed to do?” It’s to bless Mankind with life. Soon after the Flood, God promised Noah that He would never allow another catastrophe of that size to happen. (Gen. 8:21) Jeremiah explains that if Israel ever ceases as a People before the Lord forever, the natural laws will cease functioning properly, which will cause natural catastrophes to even erase Mankind from the earth.
(Jer. 31:35-37) It means that the role of the Messiah on earth is to prevent natural catastrophes to threaten Mankind. **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**The sins of the Messiah have nothing to do with the Messianic role of the Messiah. This is part of personal salvation. And personal salvation comes as a result of obedience to the Law. That’s the law of cause and effect.
When Israel, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, or Messiah ben Joseph was used as Redeemer of Judah, or Messiah ben David, he had to be made spotless spiritually in order to be sacrificed for the sins of Judah. Now, Judah needs only to exist as a People before the Lord forever for the collective salvation of Mankind. The sins of this Messiah, just like everyone else are purged through the law of cause and effect. **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
L
Lapell
Guest
** Now, for a Christian to say that he or she does not believe in Replacement Theology with Galatians 4:21-31 is a cop-out. I would believe him or her only after he or she tore that chapter out of the NT. **Ben, you keep talking as though Paul was the pope of the Christians. Why did he write in that same letter to the Galatians that after a number of years he went back to Jerusalem for 15 days to speak with Peter to make sure his preaching was not vain and off the tracks? He received encouragement to continue and they shook hands, so clearly he was in agreement with the Gospel as taught by Peter and the other Apostles…
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
You don’t understand. It is an article of faith for Ben that Paul corrupted Christianity and that Jesus was “in the line of” the Pharisees. The evidence he provides is that a translator chose the word “rabbi” in translating from Greek to English. Any documentary evidence to the contrary is just proof of Paul’s cleverness in rewriting the Gospels. The Pope is hiding the true Gospels in the Vatican vaults.
- Status